The move to the principle of separation of powers in its relative meaning has a clear
impact in achieving the confusion between the legal works of the state authorities.
Therefore, it was necessary to search for clear criteria to identify the legal
nature for those
works, especially that they differ in terms of the legal system governing them.
These criteria are important in distinguishing the administrative decisions form the
other works which the state authorities do, especially that they are an effective tool within
the hand of the administration in the face of individuals being subject to the judicial control
on the one hand, and that they are liable to be canceled and modified by the administration
on the other hand. In addition, the state is responsible for the harm caused by these acts to
individuals.
The jurisprudence and the judiciary are swinging between the two criteria even if one
of them overshadows the other. This research aims to demonstrate the criteria used in
distinguishing the administrative decision from the other legal works, as well as the
standpoint of the Syrian, Egyptian and French jurisprudence and judiciary regarding this
issue.
